See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264710004

Performance Improvement of Flexible Manufacturing System: A Case Study

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 3,501

3 authors, including:

Abid Ali Mirza Jahanzaib

University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    164 PUBLICATIONS   623 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Miscellaneous View project

The Impact of Marketing communication tools on building Brand Equity in Printing industry of Bahawalpur: a B2B Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mirza Jahanzaib on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Performance Improvement of Flexible Manufacturing System: A Case Study
Abid Ali, Rafi Javed Qureshi & Mirza Jahanzaib
Department of Industrial Engineering University of Engineering and Technology Taxila, Pakistan.

Abstract—Extensive competition in manufacturing have left no space for system inefficiencies and it
has evolved a manufacturing environment which seeks reduced manufacturing lead times, increased
quality standards, vast product variety and competitive cost. The trend towards globalization requires
these manufacturing environments to be designed such that it can cater challenges of market place to
survive and grow. To cope with these challenges the technologies support with automation and
flexibility. The objectives of improvement of manufacturing environment are the basis of emergence of
flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs). In this paper a case study of small and medium enterprise
(SME) is presented with contribution of some performance improvement methods for flexible
manufacturing system. Analytical models illustrated in literature are employed to estimate the
performance measures like utilization and maximum production rate. Development of an improved
design for existing flexible manufacturing system of SME is also part of this study. In addition to
simulation of manufacturing system, various performance parameters are compared and evaluated for
existing and improved FMS.
Keywords— Flexible Manufacturing System, Utilization, Production Rate, Performance Measures

1. Introduction

Intense competition in manufacturing environment offers new strains to the manufacturing systems,
such as increasing diversity, delivery on time with emphasize on conventional standards of quality and
competitive cost. Therefore, in global scenario, the focus is on a developing manufacturing system that
can meet all the required conditions within due dates at a reasonable cost. The introduction of flexible
manufacturing system (FMS) allows manufacturing industry, to improve their performance, together
with the flexibility to make individual product at medium volume. A flexible Manufacturing system
(FMS) can be defined as a computer-controlled configuration of semi-dependent jobs and material
handling systems designed to efficiently produce different mixes of product with low to medium
volume. It blends high flexibility with high productivity and low work-in-process. The delicacy of the
FMS is that it is taken from the ideas both from the current loading and batch workshop manufacturing
system and is designed to imitate the flexibility of job shops, while maintaining the effectiveness of its
own. To meet demands with minimum marksman simultaneously is should be objective a
manufacturing system such as FMS. A general FMS is able to process a variety of products in small
and medium batches simultaneously. The Flexibility of a flexible manufacturing system (FMS)
enabled it as the most appropriate manufacturing systems in the current manufacturing circumstances.
With the aim of producing combining flexibility and productivity, the design of the Flexible
Manufacturing System (FMS) is the subject of huge investment. Deterministic Models are based on
discrete event simulation, can be used to design the production Systems such as FMS. The distinctive
design and size of the hardware requirements for an FMS require attention and care at strategic level.
The layout and design of the system is to be designed by keeping the targeted production in mind
ensuring that FMS will fulfill the fluctuating demands. The design decisions must be based on the
FMS to justify the performance improvements. This paper presents the evaluation of existing flexible
manufacturing system with the objective of improvements in the performance of system by bringing
modifications into the system.

2. Literature Review

The concept of providing variety of products with flexible manufacturing processes in large quantities
at the lowest possible cost incurred in the late 1980s.The flexible manufacturing, after decades of

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 7

research, seems to be an alternative to other competitors and fragmented. Competition in the
manufacturing sector in the next ten years would be focused on flexibility and quick response to
market changes. Manufacturing giants have discovered that the production in large quantities for the
mass market is no longer the way to stay in business (Fulkerson, Bill 1997). The flexible
manufacturing system covers a wide range of automated production system, it basically consists of
CNC machines, material handling system, and a control mechanism (Sidhartha, Cem 2004).
Manufacturing flexibility is the ability to produce system adapt to uncertain environments and it can a
competition concerns (Correa 1994, Fine CH 1985), but gains flexibility has cost associated with it
(Sethi AK, Sethi SP 1990) and must be estimated ( Pellegrino R, 2010). Different types of flexibility
such as product mix flexibility process flexibility and volume flexibility respectively as capability,
multiple products can be defined without much setup costs manufacture, which develops different
processes and routing and the possibility of having different output levels (Browne J et al produce
1984, Fontes D 2008).

Two main factors which are drivers of the necessity of manufacturing flexibility are identified as

 Environmental uncertainty and

 Variability of products and processes (Correa 1994).

In the first case, flexibility confronts unexpected situations both from inside the system and outside the
system whereas in second case, flexibility is supposed to offer variety of products in order to keep up
manufacturing processes. Changes within the manufacturing system are considered inconveniencies
like machine failure, variability in work time and unavailability of raw material (Buzacott 1989)
Machine flexibility and routine flexibility are more specific categories of flexible manufacturing (Peter
Kostal, Karol Velisek 2011). Machine flexibility deals in manufacturing of different products with a
given machine and routine flexibility addresses the execution of the same operation by a range of
machines. This study will stick with these categories of manufacturing flexibility. The need of
flexibility is emerged from factors such as uncertainty of demand, shorter product and technology life
cycles, shorter delivery times, increased product variety and increased customization (Toni, Tonchia
1998). The flexibility offered by FMS has limits such as its development is based on fixed amount of
information and absence of learning process (Schonberger 1986). Thus, to address highly uncertain
demand and manufacturing of very wide variety of products, more responsive system is required so
from here shift from flexible to agile manufacturing takes place.

3. The Case SME

The understudy enterprise is situated in the capital territory of Pakistan. It is leading manufacturer of
CNG equipment electrical control devices from last fifteen years. Domestic and industrial appliances
are included in the broad list of Tesla Technologies. Electric element, Electric thermostat, heater safety
devices, hoses, gas geysers, Hydraulic compressed natural gas compressor and LPG dispensers are
among the products of the understudy enterprise. The products of the enterprise are spread over the
markets of thirty cities of Pakistan and from last eight years the enterprise has entered into the global
market and expanding its exports at fast pace.

The exported products of the enterprise are certified by the British Electro-Technical Approvals Board
and British Gas. Various ISO certifications are also part of the credentials of the Case enterprise (Tesla
Technologies). The Electric Element shortly known as “EE” is one of the products of the enterprise
whose manufacturing and assembly process is focused in this study.

The process of making electric element starts from tube cutting. The tubes are cut in various lengths as
per demand by the customers. A semi automatic machine is employed to cut the hollow tubes. The lot
of cut tubes is transferred to the head closing lathe where one side of the hollow tube is closed. The

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 8

tubes with closed head are then transferred to the next station where gas welding is done on closed
head to avoid leakage. The welded tubes are collected and tested one by one with the help of
compressed air and water reservoir in order to test leakage. These tubes are transferred to the Mgo
(Magnesium oxide) filling station.

In parallel to the tube cutting station the spring making station is working. The springs are made using
CNC machine. Spring holding pins are inserted in both sides of the spring and then welded by spot
welding machine. The whole lot of springs is transferred to Mgo filling station where the springs are
inserted in tubes. After inserting the springs in tubes individually, Mgo is filled in tubes. Mgo filled
tubes are sent to the testing station where weight and continuity of each element is tested. The
elements with less than standard weight are refilled with Mgo manually. After these test the elements
are transferred to the reducing machine where diameter of the element is reduced gradually. The
reduced element is now sent to marking station, where elements are marked for upcoming annealing
process. The marked elements are annealed at very high temperature for few seconds, after annealing
the elements are sent to bending machine where they are bent according to desired shape. The
elements after bending are sent to the dryer for drying. The elements after drying process are sent to
base assembly station. The elements are attached with bases and tube in which thermostat is to be
inserted is also attached with base. From now, the semi finished, elements are sent to brazing station
where each element is brazed individually. The brazing is followed by a crucial pressure test for
leakage testing. The failed elements are brazed again and the elements which pass the test are
transferred to the epoxy filling station where epoxy is filled in every individual element. Epoxy filled
elements are sent to first micro line test where electric parameters are checked thoroughly. The
elements are now transferred for wire holder attachments. At this station the wire holder is attached to
the main element. Cleaning is done at the station and the elements are sent to next station where
thermostats are inserted in one tube of elements. After thermostat insertion the elements are sent to last
micro line test where elements are tested in detail. The failed elements are placed for drying and
rechecked after a delay. The passed elements are sent to packaging station where they are packed and
stored in finished goods store. It is to be mentioned that each type of product follows the same
processing sequence.

The case SME is producing four different types of electric elements. The SME is cycle of continuous
growth and frequently goes for expansions. Currently the SME is facing the problems of unmeet
demands due to imbalance of resources and very less utilization. Analysis of existing system leads to
various improvement strategies. The production process and processing times along with the product
mix is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Part mix and corresponding processing times

Sr No. Workstations Part Mix
EE1 EE2 EE3 EE4
0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1
Time (sec)
1 Cutting Station 7.79 7 8 7.88
2 Tube Closing Station 14.10 13 13 13
3 Welding Station 6.00 6 6.1 5.99
4 Leakage Testing Station 8.33 8.33 8 8.66
5 Spring Making Station 27.45 25 28 16.5
6 Filling Station 11.67 10 12 11
7 Weight Testing Station 5.63 5.63 4.77 6
8 Continuity Testing Station 4.90 4.90 4.5 4.5
9 Reducing Station 5.84 4 6 5
10 Marking Station 6.12 6.12 6 6.14

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 9

 11 Annealing Station 5.67 5.67 5.5 4.5
12 Bending Station 6.55 5 6 5
13 Demoisturizing Station 6.12 6.12 6.12 6.12
14 Continuity Testing Station2 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
15 Fitting Station 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37
16 Brazing Station 41.08 41.08 41.08 41.08
17 Pressure Testing Station 22.22 22.22 22.22 22.22
18 Epoxy Filling Station 9.89 9.89 9.89 9.89
19 Microiline Testing Station 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00
20 Holder Attachment Station 43.31 43.31 42 41
21 Cleaning Station 11.07 10 11 10
22 Thermostat Assembly Station 11.13 9 12 11
23 MFT Station 27.23 25 28 29
24 Packing Station 47.32 45 49 46

3.1 Performance Analysis of Manufacturing System

Modeling of Existing System

Various models are demonstrated in literature to probe into a manufacturing system. Physical models,
simulation model and analytical models are most extensively used for study and development of
manufacturing systems. Manufacturing systems are so big arrangements that they cannot be physically
modeled and experimented. So, physical models are not fit for manufacturing system investigation and
improvement. Simulation modeling is partially used in this study. Simulation study involves
uncertainties and requires statistical verification at the end. Analytical models offer most certain results
and used in this study as primary source of system analysis and improvement. To carry out modeling
of manufacturing system various assumptions are need to be established.

 The study is deterministic

 Only static parameters are evaluated
 System has inbuilt bottlenecks
 Frequency of operation is one (unity)

The study is carried out at process level i.e. operational level. Various operational parameters
investigated are presented in following lines.

3.2 Operational Parameters

Stations Workloads in Existing Configuration

To estimate different performance measure of system the workloads on each workstation is required to
be calculated. The workload on each station is precisely defined as the average time spent on any
station by the product or item. Further, the workload will help to define bottleneck station(s) of the
system.

Equation 1
In above equation
= Average workload for station (Minutes)
= Processing time for operation in process plan at station (Minutes)
= operation frequency in operation part at station
= Part mix for part j
The average workload estimated for different workstations of existing system is presented in table 2

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 10

 Table 2 Workload estimation
Sr No. Workstations Average Workload (Sec) Average Workload (Min)
1 Cutting Station 7.79 0.130
2 Tube Closing Station 14.10 0.235
3 Welding Station 6.00 0.100
4 Leakage Testing Station 8.33 0.139
5 Spring Making Station 27.45 0.457
6 Filling Station 11.67 0.194
7 Weight Testing Station 5.63 0.094
8 Continuity Testing Station 4.90 0.082
9 Reducing Station 5.84 0.097
10 Marking Station 6.12 0.102
11 Annealing Station 5.67 0.094
12 Bending Station 6.55 0.109
13 Demoisturising Station 6.12 0.102
14 Continuity Testing Station2 5.00 0.083
15 Fitting Station 9.37 0.156
16 Brazing Station 41.08 0.685
17 Pressure Testing Station 22.22 0.370
18 Epoxy Filling Station 9.89 0.165
19 Microline Testing Station 32.00 0.533
20 Holder Attachment Station 43.31 0.722
21 Cleaning Station 11.07 0.185
22 Thermostat Assembly Station 11.13 0.186
23 MFT Station 27.23 0.454
24 Packaging Station 47.32 0.789

Bottleneck Estimation of Existing System

The bottleneck station of under study system can be found by estimating the following ratio.

Equation 2

The workstation which has largest workload to number of servers ratio is a bottleneck station. The
microline testing station concluded as bottleneck station. Workload to server ratios of all workstation
is summarized is presented in table 3.

Table 3 Bottleneck estimation

Sr No. Workstations
1 Tube Cutting Station
2 Tube Closing Station
3 Welding Station
4 Leakage Testing Station
5 Spring Making Station
6 Filling Station
7 Weight Testing Station
8 Continuity Testing Station
9 Reducing Station
10 Marking Station
11 Annealing Station
Number of Servers Bottleneck Station (min)
1 0.130
1 0.235
1 0.100
1 0.139
1 0.457
1 0.194
1 0.094
1 0.082
1 0.097
1 0.102
1 0.094

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 11

 12 Bending Station 1 0.109
13 Demoisturizing Station 1 0.102
14 Continuity Testing Station2 1 0.083
15 Fitting Station 3 0.052
16 Brazing Station 2 0.342
17 Pressure Testing Station 2 0.185
18 Epoxy Filling Station 1 0.165
19 Microiline Testing Station 1 0.533
20 Holder Attachment Station 3 0.241
21 Cleaning Station 1 0.185
22 Thermostat Assembly Station 1 0.186
23 MFT Station 1 0.454
24 Packaging Station 3 0.263

3.4 Performance Measures

Production Rate of Existing System

The maximum production rate is controlled by the station which is concluded as a bottleneck station.
To have maximum production rate of the parts the ratio of number of bottleneck station severs to the
workload of bottleneck station is required to be calculated. This ratio will define the maximum
production rate of the existing system.
Equation 3

By implementation of above formula the maximum production rate for existing system is 112.5 Pc. /hr.
1125 Pc. /day (10 Hours a day). The individual production rate of any manufacturing station can be
estimated by applying equation 4.

Equation 4

Utilization of Each Workstation

The amount of time a specific workstation is working and not in idle condition is defined as mean
utilization. Utilization of each workstation can be calculated by using equation 5. The bottleneck
station has always 100 % utilization.

Equation 5

Table 4 presents the utilization of each workstation of the existing manufacturing system.

Table 4 Average utilization of each workstation

Sr Workstations
No.
1 Tube Cutting Station
2 Tube Closing Station
3 Welding Station
4 Leakage Testing Station
5 Spring Making Station
6 Filling Station
7 Weight Testing Station
Bottle Neck Utilization (%)
( )
1 24.341
1 44.055
1 18.750
1 26.026
1 85.775
1 36.456
1 17.589

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 12

 8 Continuity Testing 1 15.313
Station
9 Reducing Station 1 18.250
10 Marking Station 1 19.127
11 Annealing Station 1 17.705
12 Bending Station 1 20.465
13 Demoisturizing Station 1 19.127
14 Continuity Testing 1 15.625
Station2
15 Fitting Station 3 9.760
16 Brazing Station 2 64.190
17 Pressure Testing 2 34.719
Station
18 Epoxy Filling Station 1 30.893
19 Microiline Testing 1 100.000
Station
20 Holder Attachment 3 45.115
Station
21 Cleaning Station 1 34.607
22 Thermostat Assembly 1 34.793
Station
23 MFT Station 1 85.107
24 Packaging Station 3 49.295

Overall Utilization of Existing Manufacturing System

Equation 6

By using equation 6 the overall utilization of system can be calculated. The utilization of existing
system is 36 %.

3.5 Proposed Flexible Manufacturing System

Sizing the System
The investigated manufacturing system after analysis of various performance parameters is found to be
very in efficient. The system is unable to respond to fluctuating demands due to inherent imbalance.
The resources are distributed inefficiently with improper allocation of workloads. The servers are
added in proposed manufacturing setup to balance the work load and to remove the bottlenecks. In the
course of balancing the system total eleven servers are added in order to modify the manufacturing
system. Along with the additional marking station is removed as it is merged with the annealing
station.
Production Rate of Proposed Manufacturing System
The maximum production rate is controlled by the station which is concluded as a bottleneck station.
Mgo filling station is bottleneck station for proposed manufacturing system. To have maximum
production rate of the parts the ratio of number of bottleneck station severs to the workload of
bottleneck station is required to be calculated. This ratio will define the maximum production rate of
the existing system that can be calculated by equation 3. 3169 Pc/Day is the throughput of the existing
system.
Utilization of Each Workstation of Proposed manufacturing System
The amount of time a specific workstation is working and not in idle condition is defined as mean
utilization. Utilization of each workstation can be calculated by using equation 5. The bottleneck

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 13

station has always 100 % utilization. Equation 5 is employed to calculate the utilization of each
workstation. The table 5 presents the workloads and utilization of each workstation. Overall utilization
of proposed system is improved from 36% to 76%. It is to be worth noting that further utilization could
also be improved but a serious constraint was there. The mgo filling station (new bottleneck) is such a
huge set up that addition of that station could only be made if the whole manufacturing facility is to be
restructured or at least the ongoing process be halted.

Table 5 Utilization of proposed system

SI Workstations Number of Servers Average Work Utilization (%)
.No (Proposed System) load (Min)
1 Tube Cutting 1 0.13 66.768
Station
2 Tube Closing 2 0.23 60.423
Station
3 Welding Station 1 0.10 51.432
4 Leakage Testing 1 0.14 71.390
Station
5 Spring Making 3 0.46 78.429
Station
6 Filling Station 1 0.19 100.000
7 Weight Testing 1 0.09 48.248
Station
8 Continuity Testing 1 0.08 42.003
Station
9 Reducing Station 1 0.10 50.060
10 Annealing Station 1 0.09 48.566
11 Bending Station 1 0.11 56.136
12 Demoisturizing 1 0.10 52.468
Station
13 Continuity Testing 1 0.08 42.860
Station2
14 Fitting Station 3 0.16 26.773
15 Brazing Station 4 0.68 88.038
16 Pressure Testing 2 0.37 95.235
Station
17 Epoxy Filling 1 0.16 84.741
Station
18 Microiline Testing 3 0.53 91.435
Station
19 Holder 4 0.72 92.814
Attachment
Station
20 Cleaning Station 1 0.18 94.928
21 Thermostat 1 0.19 95.440
Assembly Station
22 MFT Station 3 0.45 77.817
23 Packaging Station 5 0.79 81.131

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 14

 Figure 1 SIMIO built Proposed Model Snapshot

4. Results and Discussion

The study was done to investigate the loopholes of flexible manufacturing system by means of
analytical models. The manufacturing system of understudy SME was found to be much underutilized
with production rate of 1072 pc/day (10 hours a day). Except few station all others work stations were
being utilized around or fewer than 50 %. By probing into the deficiencies of the FMs the restructuring
and redesigning of the system is done by adding few resources to the system. Very small increase in
the servers added very large amount in form of resource utilization. The comparison of number of
servers increased is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2 Proposed Vs Existing FMS Servers

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 15

Figure 3 presents the utilization of proposed FMS against the utilization of resources of existing FMS.
More than half of the stations are now brought above 50 % utilization which was previously below
50% utilization. Microline station was bottleneck station in existing configuration and was halting the
production rate at 107 pc/ hour. By redesigning and improving the system the new bottleneck station is
mgo filling station. The production rate of proposed FMS is 3169 pc /day 316 pc / hour. The table 6
gives the detail.

Figure 3 Proposed Vs Existing FMS Utilization

Table 6 FMSs Summary (Proposed Vs Existing)

Sr. No Performance Parameters Existing FMS Proposed FMS
1 No of Servers 32 43
2 Overall Utilization 36 % 76%
3 Production Rate / hour 107 pc 316 pc

5. Conclusion

The study was to analyze the existing system and to improve performance of the system by
reconfiguration of flexible manufacturing system. Various techniques such as analytical modeling and
simulation modeling were used to achieve the objectives. First, various performance and operational
parameters were estimated then new FMS has been proposed with the optimum number of servers. The
findings explored that microline station was being utilized at 100 %. These results indicated that the
microline testing station is a bottleneck station. Since this station is crucial for the processing all sub-
types, it is proposed that the bottleneck is to be moved from this station to some other less important in
the proposed FMS. Utilization was found another core issue in the understudy system. It is concluded
that the resources of the system were underutilized severely. 11 servers were added into proposed
configuration that is about 36 % percent increment was made. The utilization was increased from 35%
to 76% that is about 110% increase in utilization was made by merely 36 % increase in number of
servers. As a result of modification and sizing the FMS the throughput of the system was increased
from 107 pc per hour to 316 pc per hour. For future study in the SME the layout and material handling
system can also be investigated with a hope of further improvement in the system performance.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 16

 References
Fulkerson, Bill (1997) “A Response to Dynamic Change in the Market Place” Journal of Decision
Support Systems.
Sidhartha R. Dasa, Cem Canelb 2004 “An algorithm for scheduling batches of parts in a multi-cell
flexible manufacturing system”.
Correa HL. 1994 “Linking flexibility, uncertainty and variability in manufacturing systems”. Avebury.
Fine CH, Hax 1985 “A. Manufacturing strategy: a methodology and an illustration. Interfaces”.
Sethi AK, Sethi SP. 1990 “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”. The International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
Pellegrino R. 2010 “Evaluating the expansion flexibility of flexible manufacturing systems in
uncertain environments”. International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics.
Browne J, Dubois D, Rathmill K, Sethi SP, Stecke KE 1984. “Classification of flexible manufacturing
systems”. The FMS Magazine.
Fontes D. Fixed 2008 versus flexible production systems: a real options analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research.
Correa HL. 1994 “Linking flexibility, uncertainty and variability in manufacturing systems”. Avebury.
Fine CH, Hax 1985 “A. Manufacturing strategy: a methodology and an illustration. Interfaces”.
Sethi AK, Sethi SP. 1990 “Flexibility in manufacturing: a survey”. The International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
Pellegrino R. 2010 “Evaluating the expansion flexibility of flexible manufacturing systems in
uncertain environments”. International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics.
Browne J, Dubois D, Rathmill K, Sethi SP, Stecke KE 1984. “Classification of flexible manufacturing
systems”. The FMS Magazine.
Fontes D. Fixed 2008 versus flexible production systems: a real options analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research.
De Toni & S. Tonchia1998: “Manufacturing flexibility: A literature review” International Journal of
Production Research.
Slack, N., and Correa, H 1992 “The flexibility of push and pull”. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management.
Gupta, D., and Buzacott, J. A., 1989, “A Framework for Understanding Fexibility of Manufacturing
Systems” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 89-97.
Peter Kostal, Karol Velisek 2011 “Flexible Manufacturing System”.
Schonberger, R. J.World 1986 “Class Manufacturing The Principles of Simplicity Applied”

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSITM: Volume: 02, Number: 06, April-2013 Page 17

View publication stats